Waverley West Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 An old shot of 24081 entering Edinburgh Waverley station, must have been late 70s I guess... 14 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waverley West Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 (edited) At the other end of the diesel traction spectrum, I managed to capture a few quick shots of 68007 as it passed by light engine the other day... Edited March 10, 2017 by Waverley West 19 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post mullie Posted March 12, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted March 12, 2017 Six Wheel carriages form part of a mixed train waiting in the sidings at Pott Row. 34 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Popular Post Barry Ten Posted March 14, 2017 RMweb Gold Popular Post Share Posted March 14, 2017 37 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian@stenochs Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 An old shot of 24081 entering Edinburgh Waverley station, must have been late 70s I guess... Superb picture spoiled by the toy like crossing gaps in the foreground. Sorry if I offend but that's how I see it. Am I the only one? Ian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
garethashenden Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 Superb picture spoiled by the toy like crossing gaps in the foreground. Sorry if I offend but that's how I see it. Am I the only one? Ian I was more bothered by the way the tunnels seem to float above the ground. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightengine Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 We often see floating station buildings on layouts featured in mags, a tunnel doesn't matter much. What about all the loco firemen with tennis elbow? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waverley West Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 Superb picture spoiled by the toy like crossing gaps in the foreground. Sorry if I offend but that's how I see it. Am I the only one? Ian A necessary compromise I'm afraid if I want to build a layout covering half of Waverley station and Haymarket depot and have a family life and a business to run at the same time. It's one I can live with though, especially as the alternative would be far too many hours of track-building for what I would consider to be a relatively marginal improvement in the big scheme of things and that really wouldn't appeal, even if I had the time. I was more bothered by the way the tunnels seem to float above the ground. A valid point and one I'm very much aware of too. It's been many years since I ballasted that part of the layout and the ballast has worn away around the tunnel structure base. The tunnel has to be removable for access too; otherwise sealing the base in with ballast would be the first thing I would do. The plan is to completely reballast the station area at some point and hide those darned gaps. 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium wagonbasher Posted March 16, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 16, 2017 A necessary compromise I'm afraid if I want to build a layout covering half of Waverley station and Haymarket depot and have a family life and a business to run at the same time. It's one I can live with though, especially as the alternative would be far too many hours of track-building for what I would consider to be a relatively marginal improvement in the big scheme of things and that really wouldn't appeal, even if I had the time. A valid point and one I'm very much aware of too. It's been many years since I ballasted that part of the layout and the ballast has worn away around the tunnel structure base. The tunnel has to be removable for access too; otherwise sealing the base in with ballast would be the first thing I would do. The plan is to completely reballast the station area at some point and hide those darned gaps. I appreciate that this suggestion may well be too late for Waverley West but as a rule I find that if structures are modelled such that the decoration (brickwork, stone work, bricks and paint) etc are modelled to include 5 - 10mm below ground and then a corresponding hole is made in the scenery for it to slot into the levitating effect is removed. The gap if any is now a vertical one and harder to see from normal viewing angles. If you are cutting into foam then the hole can be very accurate and the gap invisible. There are restrictions obviously, not easy to cut a hole into plywood etc if the structure is straight onto the base board.. Andy 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waverley West Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 (edited) I appreciate that this suggestion may well be too late for Waverley West but as a rule I find that if structures are modelled such that the decoration (brickwork, stone work, bricks and paint) etc are modelled to include 5 - 10mm below ground and then a corresponding hole is made in the scenery for it to slot into the levitating effect is removed. The gap if any is now a vertical one and harder to see from normal viewing angles. If you are cutting into foam then the hole can be very accurate and the gap invisible. There are restrictions obviously, not easy to cut a hole into plywood etc if the structure is straight onto the base board.. Andy Yes, not a practical solution for WW in its current form, partly because the tunnel sits over and hides a baseboard joint. It's nothing that a bit of ballast won't solve though. I just need to get a round tuit and from what I've heard that will solve all my problems. It's on the list, but with revamping of the whole of the station area planned at some point, that part of the layout has been neglected while I've been working on the other side of the layout over the past few years. A good suggestion though generally, Andy, as baseboard/building gaps do tend to catch the eye. Edited March 16, 2017 by Waverley West 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CME and Bottlewasher Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 (edited) A necessary compromise I'm afraid if I want to build a layout covering half of Waverley station and Haymarket depot and have a family life and a business to run at the same time. It's one I can live with though, especially as the alternative would be far too many hours of track-building for what I would consider to be a relatively marginal improvement in the big scheme of things and that really wouldn't appeal, even if I had the time. A valid point and one I'm very much aware of too. It's been many years since I ballasted that part of the layout and the ballast has worn away around the tunnel structure base. The tunnel has to be removable for access too; otherwise sealing the base in with ballast would be the first thing I would do. The plan is to completely reballast the station area at some point and hide those darned gaps. I am a fan of your layout and I agree - Rule 1 applies too. One reason why I moved away from OO because of the OO/HO RTL track - also the 7mm bug bit hard - hopefully we shall start seeing the new Peco track appearing on layouts, mind you SMP with Tillig Switches and Crossings are a reasonable compromise, if time and/or track building skills are in short supply. Your layout? the way in which you have ballasted and weathered the track makes the best of the RTL track. I have though also seen some wonderful 4mm layouts really let badly down - as superb in every other respect - and thus ruined by awful RTL track and track colour/weathering..... I appreciate that this suggestion may well be too late for Waverley West but as a rule I find that if structures are modelled such that the decoration (brickwork, stone work, bricks and paint) etc are modelled to include 5 - 10mm below ground and then a corresponding hole is made in the scenery for it to slot into the levitating effect is removed. The gap if any is now a vertical one and harder to see from normal viewing angles. If you are cutting into foam then the hole can be very accurate and the gap invisible. There are restrictions obviously, not easy to cut a hole into plywood etc if the structure is straight onto the base board.. Andy That's a great idea Andy, Pendon of course take that idea to extremes, if the structure has to float - for access etc - then some vegetation at the base helps hide such and as someone who used to have to issue works orders for vegetation over-growth clearance, including Buddleja bursting forth from brickwork around tunnels mouths and other railway structures, such an application of model vegetation is wholly prototypical. ATVB CME Edited March 16, 2017 by CME and Bottlewasher 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueeighties Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 I appreciate that this suggestion may well be too late for Waverley West but as a rule I find that if structures are modelled such that the decoration (brickwork, stone work, bricks and paint) etc are modelled to include 5 - 10mm below ground and then a corresponding hole is made in the scenery for it to slot into the levitating effect is removed. The gap if any is now a vertical one and harder to see from normal viewing angles. If you are cutting into foam then the hole can be very accurate and the gap invisible. There are restrictions obviously, not easy to cut a hole into plywood etc if the structure is straight onto the base board.. Andy Nice idea Andy, do you have any pictures showing the work in situ? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium wagonbasher Posted March 16, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 16, 2017 Nice idea Andy, do you have any pictures showing the work in situ? I will dig something out over the weekend Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
john flann Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 Hintock, 1937 14 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenGiraffe22 Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 (edited) Someone captured photos of a newly built Merchant Navy class during a promo run with SR wagons to promote its mix-traffic capabilities. There isn't much room for photos of full trains on my layout >.< but it was inspired by a comment I read on the Hornby Merchant Navy thread. Edited March 18, 2017 by GreenGiraffe22 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-UnitMad Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 I may just possibly be repeating myself on this thread (something I hate happening on the 'Jokes' thread!!), but a quick google hasn't thrown anything up, so here goes with the best/most realistic photo I've ever taken... My Atlas O Scale Soo Line SW1200RS at rest in the Minnesota sunshine... 12 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CME and Bottlewasher Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 (edited) I may just possibly be repeating myself on this thread (something I hate happening on the 'Jokes' thread!!), but a quick google hasn't thrown anything up, so here goes with the best/most realistic photo I've ever taken... My Atlas O Scale Soo Line SW1200RS at rest in the Minnesota sunshine... Lovely work J, just SOO superb (see what I did there? Ha ha!).A model thats been weathered wonderfully and superbly detailed etc, captured in realistic light and not a SFTB (Straight From The Box) model. I very much enjoy this Thread and the wonderful models (and skill) within, sometimes I pop my head above the parapet and Post a photo or two as well. I have always said that rly modelling is a broad church and each to their own, no value judgements made etc (one man's meat is anothers' poison etc) and J's (F Unit Mad) USA outline loco is superb (I have no idea if its RTR or kit built but its not SFTB, it looks highlighly detailed and is wonderfully weathered and I know that J has also, in the past, made some wonderful 7mm scale British outline diesels from some very challenging kits). In short J is a modeller a doer, who, as do I, from time to time, modifies and uses RTR to best advantage. Js photo highlights something for me, which has cropped up on this Thread.... Continuing on from recent comments re RTL track and floating structures etc....The OP and header asks;- How Realistic are YOUR models? [my emphasis] on the word 'your'. And perhaps Im wrong to write this, but I shall stick my neck out, the OP/title implies that the modeller, has built (from a kit or scratch), modified/weathered (from RTR) the model in question, the model(s) in the photos. As nice as some RTR is nowadays-and this isnt a dig, jibe or in any way pointed at individuals, as we all have a different POV and I mean no harm by such (Im a kind and polite person), but there has been a level of 'creep' on this Thread of late. By that, I mean, RTR models SFTB, are photographed in black and white and Posted on this Thread. Such implies that this is the High wrought Art of the Craft of railway modelling, when such is a photographic exercise coupled with the use of a credit card, opening a box and placing the contents of said box on RTL track. Im no snob, neither am I one of the hair shirt brigade or an inverted snob, just joe average.....who has no clue how to use photoshop (the latter looks enormous fun BTW). IF such photos are from Junior modellers then, thats fine-perhaps the Mods need to set up a new Thread entitled 'JUNIOR Modellers How Realistic are Your Models'. If such are merely credit-card/cheque book, SFTB models, ie those of exceptional quality from manufacturers/retailers, then perhaps a Thread entitled;-'How Realistic Are Your Latest RTR Purchases?' The latter would allow us all, from different scales, regions, eras, to see whats new in one place. I make these comments as I believe that this Thread is a cracking idea (well done Martin) and inspirational, a cross between, Pendon, MRJ and a multi modeller blog, and I wouldnt want to see it turning into a Hornby [insert other manufacturers' name as appropriate] here, catalogue, circa 1980-2017. I hope that the above is taken in the good nature in which it is written/intended..... I shall get 'me coat and go back to wrestling with some kit building and RTR wagon wrangling! Kindest regards to all, CME. Edited March 19, 2017 by CME and Bottlewasher 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenGiraffe22 Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 Re the above post, I see where you are coming from but the thread title does include "photo challenge", I think it is as much about the scenery and photographic style as it is the models used in the photos Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Johnster Posted March 19, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 19, 2017 But the challenge is to show a photo of a model that looks convincingly real. There is another aspect to this, as if the modelling is very accurate and fine scale, and lit realistically, the photo should automatically look as if it is of a real train. This is a gauntlet thrown down to rtr or other forms of 'less finescale' modelling, as many rtr models are very good, and, fitted with scale couplings, vac/air pipes, etc can look very real indeed so long as the photo does not show the track gauge or rail profile, or the flanges. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CME and Bottlewasher Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 (edited) Re the above post, I see where you are coming from but the thread title does include "photo challenge", I think it is as much about the scenery and photographic style as it is the models used in the photos Hi, you have point, yet I still feel that the vibe/ethos/spirit of the Thread is for the viewer to do a double take, so okay-perhaps-to photoshop the background yet the model is superbly made/modelled/modified/kit bashed and painted/weathered to look as realistic as possible, as real as possible. But your point is valid within that context....yet if its merely ALL about the photo, thats for a photographic site and not a modelling site? I cant speak for the OP, but I have seen Martin's (OP) models first hand and read his published articles and Threads and his model-making is superb, so Im basing my points on the quality of the model making with photography enhancing such, not merely the quality of the photography per se But the challenge is to show a photo of a model that looks convincingly real. There is another aspect to this, as if the modelling is very accurate and fine scale, and lit realistically, the photo should automatically look as if it is of a real train. This is a gauntlet thrown down to rtr or other forms of 'less finescale' modelling, as many rtr models are very good, and, fitted with scale couplings, vac/air pipes, etc can look very real indeed so long as the photo does not show the track gauge or rail profile, or the flanges. Agreed, there are models on here that use RTR to superb effect and everything else besides. Recently, to give credit where credit is due, 'Jinty' did a superb rendition of the RTR Heljan 7mm GUV and I had to do a double take, was it real or model, such was the quality of the weathering, lighting and photo! On my GUV Im changing the bogies and one or two other details then weathering such, if mine turns out half as well I will be delighted....photograph it with dangly pipes/details etc, then after the photo fit auto couplings and pop it on the layout (all my models are layout models). I hope that clarifies my early points. In addition photos can provide a warts and all view of ones modelling-I endeavour to photo my models before completion (sometimes I forget as the model is to be viewed on a layout with the MK1 eyeball Ha ha!) so as to avoid the 'oh bother [insert a myriad of alternative expletives] Ive missed that bit' moments. Kind regards to all. CME Edited March 19, 2017 by CME and Bottlewasher 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-UnitMad Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 Lovely work J, just SOO superb (see what I did there? Ha ha!). CME. You could've said "just SOOperb"... that would've been just as groan-worthy!! (but thanks for the support, anyway!!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waverley West Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 56084 runs light engine through the countryside... These will be my last contributions on this thread for the foreseeable future, as my layout is only '00' and if I were to cut out the track gauge, rail profile, crossing gaps and flanges, there wouldn't be much of a photo left. I've enjoyed taking part over the years and seeing the many great photos that others have posted though, so thanks to everyone who has contributed. Happy modelling, Dave 16 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold russ p Posted March 19, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 19, 2017 Don't be disheartened Dave, your photos are excellent i don't know why some people have got rattled when there are some pictures on this thread that belong in the 74 triang Hornby catalogue. If my new layout which is also OO looks half as good as yours i will be happy. What i want to achieve is a half decent looking layout with lots of play value for about four people at a time Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Johnster Posted March 19, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 19, 2017 (edited) Dave, the last 'against the light' shot is as good as anything I have seen in this thread; the photography and your inventive use of it overcome the 'limitations' of rtr/00 modelling and it is extremely difficult to state authoritatively that this is not a real 56 rolling light engine through some open country on a bright winter afternoon on it's way home after a day's work hard enough to oil stain the side behind the cab... We want more; please don't stop sending in work of this quality... Nil illigimatami carborundum, brother! Edited March 19, 2017 by The Johnster Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CME and Bottlewasher Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 (edited) 56084 runs light engine through the countryside... 56084 1.jpg 56084 1a.jpg 56084 2.jpg 56084 3.jpg These will be my last contributions on this thread for the foreseeable future, as my layout is only '00' and if I were to cut out the track gauge, rail profile, crossing gaps and flanges, there wouldn't be much of a photo left. I've enjoyed taking part over the years and seeing the many great photos that others have posted though, so thanks to everyone who has contributed. Happy modelling, Dave Hi Dave, Im shocked by your comments and disappointed to read that you feel that way/want to leave. Ive sent you a PM. Your content and modelling, your interpretation of the remit- perceived or otherwise-of this Thread is, IMHHO, spot on, regardless of whether or not your models are 'OO' (two of my favourite layouts, Stoke Summit and Little Bytham are 'OO'). Without being sychophantic, your diesels are superbly portrayed, to quote the late, great Jack Ray; '....a recognisable model of the prototype running in a credible background.....' and then some! My critique, my previous Posts/comments, were certainly NOT aimed at you or your modelling. And even those who may be fall into the group I was describing have nothing to be sorry for or ashamed of per se. After all we are ALL only playing trains to one degree or another. I made such comments, recently, because I felt, as a reader and occasional contributor, that some models/Posts werent in the spirit of the Thread, werent 'cricket', in terms of some just being photoshopped/B&W photos of RTR models SFTB. If you go back and re-read my last few Posts you will glean as much. I get a lot from others' modelling, seeing how such is done by others, the merits of certain techniques etc etc. no matter of scale or gauge, there is always something new to be learned as we are all ignorant to something (ie, unconsciously unaware, consciously unaware, consciously aware and unconsciously aware etc). I accept that photography is part of our hobby-a fun part. As I wrote though, the hobby is railway modelling with photography as the side-line, not the other way around. BUT that is only my personal opinion/POV. AND such should NOT stop you Posting superb photos of your superbly weathered/detailed models, unless of course you have no more models to show us (one of the reasons I view this Thread is your locos/layout/photos)? Your Posts and photos are far from a SFTB, latest 'retail therapy' (sic) model being plonked on a piece of 'OO' track, far, far from it. It's up to you what you do from here on in, but your modelling/weathering/photos are, rest assured, inspiring, regardless of whether or not theyre 'OO'! As Ive written on here before, modern RTR is superb, most of the time-one or two howlers prevail-and when detailed/personalised such are excellant, and will be even more credible when the newer track systems come along. Kind regards, CME Edited March 20, 2017 by CME and Bottlewasher 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now